Matter of K.L.F.
Opinion
ORDER
This appeal is dismissed because James L. Percival [counsel], in seeking review of a court-awarded attorney’s fee, failed timely to comply with the cost requirements of Rule 1.14,1 Rules of Appellate Procedure in Civil [1068]*1068Cases, and thus failed to commence his appeal within thirty days of the appealable event.2
Counsel’s attempt at avoiding the Rule 1.14 cost deposit requirements by filing an in-lieu affidavit in forma pauperis3 was ineffective. Attached to counsel’s paperwork was an affidavit4 stating that he represented an indigent, the nominal appellant, who was without sufficient funds to pay the filing fees. The affidavit misses the mark because it is not the client but counsel who is the real party in interest on appeal.5 Moreover, the affidavit is verified neither by the client nor by the lawyer before an officer authorized by law to administer oaths. An insufficient affidavit from the wrong affiant cannot stand as an effective substitute for the cost deposit.
The appellant-counsel neither timely paid the statutorily required $200.00 cost deposit nor placed on file, within the prescribed thirty days, the required in forma pauperis affidavit that satisfies Rule 1.14. Because the requirements for timely commencement of an appeal were not met, the lawyer’s appeal is DISMISSED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1994 OK 66 (Matter of K.L.F.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.